X-Message-Number: 26901 Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 07:26:56 -0400 From: Thomas Donaldson <> Subject: one more for Yvan Bozzonetti Hello everyone! To Yvan Bozzonetti: NO, I specifically do NOT accept that any sequential processor is equivalent to a system of parallel processors. This idea is in one sense a forgivable fallacy, since most theory about computing ignores the CRUCIAL issue of TIMING. Those who actually make large parallel machines know very well that their parallel processors aren't at all equivalent to any sequential processor, no matter how fast. I do not know how I could explain this point more clearly. TIME should be put into even the earliest computing theory. Yvan, your response also shows how the word "equivalent" and even the word "equal" can take many meanings, and the choice of meaning is very important. If we ignore TIME in our theories of computing, then yes, parallel computers are "equivalent" to sequential computers. Yes, and if we're doing biology, and look only at individual cells, then we may decide that plants are "equivalent" to animals. Not that such a decision is a good choice, but we're only talking definitions, aren't we? I hope that this message makes my position on sequential versus parallel computing clear. Best wishes and long long life for all, Thomas Donaldson Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=26901